Then on the Stand Firm thread Commenter “Chancellor” adds this very helpful history of the applicable Canon:
A little history may be helpful here. From White and Dykman (1981 ed.), Vol. II, pp. 1079-80 (with emphases added):
The first canonical enactment on the subject of the “Abandonment of the Communion of the Church by a Bishop” was Canon 1 of 1853, which read as follows:
In all cases where a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon of this Church . . . has abandoned her Communion . . . either by an open renunciation of the
Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of this Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body not in Communion with the same: such Bishop, Presbyter
or Deacon . . . shall thereupon be pronounced deposed; . . . and if a Bishop, by the Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the majority of the Members of the
House of Bishops.
. . .
This canon was enacted to meet the case of Bishop Ives of North Carolina, who, on December 22, 1852, renounced the communion of the Protestant Episcopal
Church and submitted himself to the authority of the Church of Rome. No canon on this subject had before been enacted, as there had been no need thereof . . . .
It was recognized that the canon, hastily enacted to meet an emergency, was far from perfect . . . . In the revision of the canons by [the] Convention [of 1859],
Canon 1 of 1853 was made Title II, Canon 8, and amended to read as follows:
If any Bishop . . . abandon the Communion of this Church, either by an open renunciation of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church,
or by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of the Diocese to make certificate
of the fact to the Senior Bishop . . .Notice shall then be given to said Bishop . . . that unless he shall, within six months, make declaration that the facts alleged in said certificate are false, he will
be deposed from the Ministry of this Church.And if said declaration be not made within six months as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Senior Bishop with the consent of the majority of the House of Bishops,
to depose from the Ministry the Bishop so certified as abandoning . . . .
It has thus been the case ever since the first version of the “abandonment” canon was adopted that a majority of the House of Bishops was required to consent to the
deposition of a Bishop.
Actually the abandonment canon is inappropriate to use in the first instance IF the TEC wants to claim it is in communion with the rest of the AC. If TEC is out of communion with the AC and views this the same as Bishop Ives converting to RC then it is appropriate.
Was Bp. Clarence Pope deposed when he became Catholic some years ago? Yes, I know he has gone back and forth over the years, but he did in fact “abandon the Communion” of the Episcopal Church. Was he deposed?
What perturbs me is the fact that the Anglican Church in the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas is in communion with The Episcopal Church…..even if in “impaired” status, and yet, KJS went ahead with the “deposition” of +John-David Schofield; a “deposition” which we of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin ignore and do not recognize.
Br Michael makes the key point about TEC and its relationship in communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion. Is TEC declaring itself to be out of communion with places like Uganda and the Southern Cone?
If it is and this is seen as an appropriate action by them shouldn’t TEC leadership simply declare it to be so instead of fudging back and forth? Also wouldn’t that imply a tacit admission that TEC is following a different religion from the rest of the communion? Isn’t that what the abandonment clause is all about?
“Was Bp. Clarence Pope deposed when he became Catholic some years ago? Yes, I know he has gone back and forth over the years, but he did in fact “abandon the Communion†of the Episcopal Church. Was he deposed?”
I don’t believe he was ever deposed. In fact, Edmond Browning was a personal friend of Pope and went out of his way to give pastoral care to Pope in the midst of his personal crisis, while the Catholic clergy of Baton Rouge – where Pope had retired, ignored him.
I believe that Pope’s predecessor Donald Davies was deposed when he attempted to lead the ill-starred province that was started, and later dumped, by the Episcopal Synod of America. I wonder if anyone knows how the votes were counted…
What jumps out at me, also, is that Bishop Spong should be deposed, having clearly repudiated the doctrine of the Church in print and in speech on multiple occasions.
[/blockquote]
[/blockquote]
I just wanted to see if I could get rid of the block quote tags for any further comments.
YBIC,
Phil
[b]To reiterate some points made above and repeatedly in the past:[/b]
1. The “abandonment” Canon is for the purpose of recognizing when one leaves one “Communion” for another, recognizing that there are several “communions” not in communion with each other. For example: The Roman Catholic Communion is not in Communioin with the Anglican Communion. The RC Communion is not (with some exceptions) in Communion with the Orthodox Communion, etc. [b] To suggest that Episcopal bishops who enter into formal relationship [i] within [/i] their own “communion” as having “abondoned communion” is a gross misunderstanding at least, and a malicious redefinition of the meaning of the Canon at most.[/b]
2. TEC has gone to the mat trying to emphasize to the rest of the Anglican Communion that “We want to be part of the AC and in Communion with you.” This being so regardless of their blatant denial of and refusal of the Windsor Report, Primates Meetings, Lambeth Resolutions, etc., etc., etc. [b] If this is so, how can anyone in TEC reasonably suggest that these bishops have “abandoned” the communion? [/b] To be certain, all arguements that they have fall flat.
3. What MAY be true is that they (these bishops) have abondoned the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church – but that is simply a matter of perspective, isn’t it? To the majority of the AC it is TEC that has abandoned the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the “Christian” Church! To these bishops, they are the ones who simply MUST hold fast to the foundations of the Faith once delivered and see God as the overriding Judge and Authority. TEC says essentially, “You won’t follow our rules and play along with the rest of us, so therefore you are OUT.” (Of course, “following the rules” is a moot issue when the PB and the Chancellor can simply define what that means according to their desires.)
4. Here there is sense (and those of military background will understand) of “following orders” – that is – One is bound to follow a “lawful order” whether you agree with it or not BUT if an order is morally or ethically wrong you are not bound to follow it. And yes, refusal of an order is a serious matter that can bring a “court martial” BUT in the end it is the [i]conscience of the individual[/i] that is respected. When TEC has compromized its own morals and ethics (and here we must understand we are talking about biblical morals and ethics) that makes its standards of governace (its orders) unlawful. [b]My point here: These Bishops (with regard to TEC) are acting more like “conscientious objectors” than anything else.[/b] TEC may not [i]agree[/i] with them BUT should respect their position and stands.
[b] But there is something else in this historical analysis that bears some consideration too! [/b] IF these canons were [i]meant[/i] to mean a “majority of those present” at any HoB meeting – they would have said so. They don’t. Why not? For these reasons:
[b]HISTORICAL CONTEXT: [/b]
We must NOT forget that WHEN these deposition canons were written and instituted (mid 1800’s) this was a time in America when and where communication and transportation were MUCH slower than they are now. Consequently:
1. [b]HoBs meetings and General Conventions were a MAJOR undertaking of time and travel in those days![/b] It is understandable for those bishops to understand that not everyone could make meetings for any number of reasons: expense, distance, health, transportation failures. Furthermore communication was SLOW.
2. Given these conditions of context, it only leads to suggest that the original intent of these canons was that [b]they were not intended to be easy, quick, or convenient.[/b] The Bishops would have been well aware of the difficulty of getting the consents of everyone “entitled to vote” even more so that we do today.
Just some food for further thought.
Peace to all,
John Riebe+
[blockquote]
I believe that Pope’s predecessor Donald Davies was deposed when he attempted to lead the ill-starred province that was started, and later dumped, by the Episcopal Synod of America. I wonder if anyone knows how the votes were counted…
[/blockquote]
The province you mention, I think was the Missionary Diocese in America (MDA). I was to be a non-geographic diocese for those in the Episcopal Church who could not support the inovation of the ordination of women as priests. It can be said it became the Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC) when the presiding bishop at the time withdrew the support of the MDA he had preciously indicated. It would be wrong to say that the MDA was dumped by ESA.
VP and Scott+ – thank you for the information. I had forgotten about Bp. Davies, who’s crozier I once carried. He was a grand man who made a 30 seat small-town chapel seem like a cathedral.
One point: if what I heard was true, the Catholic clergy of Baton Rouge didn’t simply ignore Bp. Pope, but actively opposed his ordination and incardination into the diocese. That, his health, the friendship of Bp. Browning (talk about an odd couple), and who knows what other factors have produced a sad situation of wavering indecision. I pray he finds a deep peace, wherever he lands.
WM, that is exactly what occured to Bishop Pope in Baton Rouge according to William Oddie in his book “The Roman Option.” It is all a sad, sad, tale and no one comes out of it looking particularly good, except arguably Edmond Browning.
I am going to come right out and say it: The ONLY communion that Episcopal Bishops are actually in communion with is The Episcopal Church…….and none other! The Episcopal Church is a Communion of……and by……itself, so, while they claim that they want to remain part of the Anglican Communion, in all actuality, they have gone off all by themselves.
[blockquote]
I am going to come right out and say it: The ONLY communion that Episcopal Bishops are actually in communion with is The Episcopal Church…….and none other! The Episcopal Church is a Communion of……and by……itself, so, while they claim that they want to remain part of the Anglican Communion, in all actuality, they have gone off all by themselves.
[/blockquote]
This is utter nonsense! A man is made a bishop in the Holy Catholic Church. To say that a bishop is not in communion with other bishops is to ignore the Anglican Communion. It is totally without merit to suggest that those who are subject to the discipline of other Anglican Jurisdictions are off all by themselves.
On the other hand such a statement is indicative of what is appearing to be a truth in ECUSA. That truth is that it sees itself as a stand-alone jurisdiction. It does not care about being in communion with other Anglican Churches.